There is freedom of religion in Malaysia

Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Improper to use freedom of expression to confuse people, says Mashitah

(Bernama) - It is improper for an individual to use the freedom of expression as a reason to state an opinion which can confuse the people, especially Muslims, in the country, the Dewan Rakyat was told today.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Senator Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim said that though the government believed in the principle of freedom of expression to state an opinion, matters related to religious issues were most sensitive to Muslims.

“In the effort to exercise control over sensitive issues among Muslims, action can be taken under Section 298A of the Penal Code which relates to causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion,” she said when replying to a question from Amran Ab Ghani (PKR-Tanah Merah) on the measures taken by the government to control the issuing of ‘fatwa’ (rulings) by unauthorised individuals.

Mashitah said the legal proceedings under the provision were handled by the civil courts and a convicted individual could be sentenced to jail for between two and five years.

Replying to a supplementary question, from Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN-Sri Gading), Mashitah said that though there were no legal provisions to act against Muslims who propose that Muslims should be free to choose their religion, action could be taken against them for insulting Islam or causing it to be despised.

Mohamed Aziz has asked what action could be taken against PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar for having said last Saturday that Malay Muslims should be free to choose their religion.

Mashitah said enactments in certain states provided for a fine of up to RM3,000 or a jail sentence of up to two years, or both, for those convicted of insulting Islam or causing it to be despised orally or in writing.

********************************************

Jais should probe Nurul Izzah's statement: Khalid

(Bernama) -- The Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) needs to carry out an investigation regarding Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar's statement on freedom of religion, said Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

Abdul Khalid, who is also the state executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs, this was necessary to prevent Muslims from becoming confused and ensure that there was no negative impact to the ummah (faithful) in the wake of the controversy surrounding the issue.

"I support an investigation into the matter and the actions taken by Jais on it as it is a positive thing, no Muslim wants another to leave the religion (Islam)," he told reporters here today.

However, he added that Nurul Izzah, the MP for Lembah Pantai, should be given the opportunity to come forward to clear the air over the matter as there were many versions on the issue in media reports.

He was commenting on a report in a news portal which had reported Nurul Izzah as saying at a forum held in Subang Jaya on Saturday that each citizen of the country had the right to profess the religion of his or her choice and that this included the Malays, all of whom are Muslims.

********************************************

Siti Kasim, a member of the Bar Council human rights committee -- and the person who asked Nurul Izzah Anwar that most controversial question regarding freedom of religion -- said she is disappointed that Nurul has “retracted” her remark.

“I believe Nurul was just trying to impress the people, she didn’t think of the consequences,” she told FMT. Siti said Nurul should have stood firm on her remark that freedom of religion was a right for all including the Malay-Muslim.

(READ MORE HERE)

I would have to agree with Siti. Whether what Nurul Izzah said was politically correct or politically incorrect, she has already said it so she should stick to her guns. She should challenge her critics to explain what it is she said that was wrong. If they think that what she said was wrong then they have to come out to explain what is wrong with her statement.

Nurul Izzah is now blaming Utusan Malaysia for this whole thing. Is she saying that she did not say what they said she said and that Utusan lied? Or is she saying she only meant that freedom of religion is for non-Muslims and Muslims do not have freedom of religion?

I personally know a number of ex-Muslim Malays who have left Islam to become Christians. And according to the Perak Mufti, about 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam.

I doubt someone of a Mufti’s status would lie. Hence it must be true that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam. But why did the Mufti say ‘want to leave’, as if they have not quite left yet? Islam is about akidah or faith. And if you no longer have faith in Islam then you no longer have any akidah. And if you no longer have any akidah then you are automatically no longer a Muslim.

In short, you do not have to ‘leave’ Islam. By your very lack of faith you have been ‘kicked out’ of Islam, so to speak. Hence, it is not that 500,000 Malays ‘want to leave’ Islam but 500,000 Malays ‘have already left’ Islam because they no longer have any akidah.

The absence of akidah means you are not a Muslim, plain and simple. Is this too difficult to understand?

Now, how does the Mufti know that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam? He can only know because the government has checked and they know the numbers because they know whom these people are.

There are two ways to leave Islam. One would be to no longer have any akidah. Another would be to go to the National Registration Department (NRD) and inform them that you have left Islam and you want the ‘Islam’ on your identity card removed.

Now, whether the NRD does or does not remove the ‘Islam’ on your ID does not matter. ‘Legally’, you may still be a Muslim if they do not amend/update your ID. Technically, you are no longer a Muslim.

Hence Islam is not about the word ‘Islam’ on a piece of plastic. Islam is about what is in your heart. And if you heart is no longer a Muslim then you are no longer a Muslim, never mind what that piece of plastic says.

Some people dispute the Perak Mufti’s figure of 500,000. They say that figure is too high and that it is actually much lower than that. Okay, so it may not be 500,000. It may be only 100,000 or 50,000 or just 10,000. Whatever the figure may be, the government does not deny the fact that some Muslims want to or have already left Islam. And I personally know some of these people.

I also know many Muslims who still regard themselves as Muslims but reject the Hadith. The government calls these people ‘anti-Hadith’. However, these people say they are not anti-Hadith but pro-Qur’an -- or as what some would call ‘Qur’an alone’ Muslims.

Trust me, there are many such Muslims, even amongst the Malays or Malaysians.

Now, according to the Malaysian government’s interpretation of Islam, you must accept the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sunnah to quality as Muslim, all three. If you reject even one of the three then you are no longer a Muslim. In other words, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Muslims are no longer Muslims because they refuse to accept the Hadith and/or the Sunnah.

Hence, according to the Malaysian government, these people have ‘left’ Islam. In fact, they would be considered heretics or even apostates, and heresy as well as apostasy attracts the death sentence in all three Abrahamic faiths (although those in the west no longer follow this rule -- as they no longer follow the rule on homosexuality, gay marriages, etc.).

The bottom line is, by act of rejection of certain doctrines of Islam or by total rejection of Islam, many Malays have already ‘left’ Islam (or have been ‘kicked out’ of Islam). That is the reality.

And has the Malaysian government arrested these people or punished these people in any way? The answer is, of course, ‘no’. And since the government has not taken action against so many Malays who by act of omission or act of rejection have left or have been kicked out of Islam, would that not mean there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even freedom for Muslims to leave Islam?

Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims.

And that is why Nurul Izzah should not act like she has done something wrong. Instead of sounding very defensive and apologetic she should go on the attack. She should challenge the government to prove her wrong. She should challenge the government to state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam will be arrested and will be put to death.

Nurul Izzah is probably afraid that she will lose Malay support if the Malays believe that she supports apostasy. Hence she is doing some damage control. It looks like the government has her on the run and she is falling right into it.

The video recording of that forum is now on Youtube and what Nurul Izzah really said is there for all and sundry to see. It is too late to try to explain what she really meant or accuse Utusan Malaysia of distorting or twisting what she said. Maybe she meant something else and they interpreted it as something else. But so what?

Nurul Izzah should not play this ‘I have been misquoted’ game that most politicians play. Instead, she should say, “Yes, I said that there is freedom of religion and prove that I am wrong.” Challenge all those people who whacked you and make them state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia.

Then, once they do that, challenge them to explain, if there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia, why has the government done nothing about all those many Malays who have left Islam?

The best form of defense is an offense. Nurul Izzah should go on the offensive rather than appear defensive. They are trying to bring her down, that’s for sure. If she has to go down then go down fighting. She should stand by what she said and make the government explain what it is she said that is wrong.

I doubt anyone will dare say that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam must be put to death. If they dare say this they would have said it a long time ago. I would play poker and see what hand they have. I bet you their cards are, as the Chinese would say, chekai.

Come on Nurul, fight back, don’t back down. And cancel your meeting with JAIS tomorrow. Tell them to go to hell. Why do you need to explain yourself unless you have done something wrong?

Who the fuck are Nurul Izzah’s advisers anyway?

Just DO IT, not DUIT!

A good chunk of the legal work in MBPJ has been diverted to the firms of Sivarasa, Surendran and Derrick through the influence of Lateefa Koya and Derrick. After all, this is a PKR-controlled council. Is this not corruption, or at least a conflict of interest?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
'We don't need to meet RPK. We have Internet'

RPK dakwa rasuah tapi tiada bukti

Come back and shed light on bribery claims, Selangor urges Raja Petra

The Selangor government wants me to come forward and reveal the conflicts of interest, abuses of power and transgressions in the state administration. I will do just that. In the meantime, while I gather some of the evidence to enable the state to get to the bottom of things, maybe they can start investigating these first two cases.

These cases do not need any evidence from me. The state has all the records and most likely they can quote the figures from the top of their heads. In one of the cases, if the state can cooperate with the MACC to ensure that the identity of the whistleblower is protected, I will try to convince that person to come forward to testify.

This whistleblower is a Chinese and a developer who depends on state approvals for his company’s projects. So, invariably, he is very concerned about his business being disrupted or sabotaged if his identity is revealed. Chinese business people somehow appear paranoid about being victimised by what they perceive as a ‘Malay’ administration.

The first case involves Azmin Ali’s brother-in-law, Johan Taharin. Johan approached one developer who has been having problems getting certain approvals since Pakatan Rakyat first came to power almost four years ago.

Now, I have known this developer personally for some number of years. In the past, he had always voted MCA. For the first time in 2008 he supported Pakatan Rakyat. He even organised talks in his house for me to speak to his neighbours, friends and family so that I can campaign and swing them over to Pakatan Rakyat. Some of this person’s friends even flew back from Australia, Canada and the US at his behest just to vote for Pakatan Rakyat.

This developer complained to me that Johan approached his firm and said that he (Johan) is aware that they (the developer) is facing problems getting approval from the state. Johan offered to help them overcome their problems, for a fee.

The developer asked Johan how can they be assured that they would get approval once they paid the money? Can they instead pay after the approval has been obtained rather than pay upfront? After all, they are talking about a few million here, not a small amount of money.

Johan told the developer that he is representing Azmin Ali and if required he can bring them to meet Azmin so that Azmin can personally give them his assurance. They replied they will think about it.

The developer then phoned me, cursing and swearing. “We voted Pakatan Rakyat because of you,” the developer said. “Before that we were MCA supporters. But because of you for the first time we all supported Pakatan Rakyat.”

“What’s the difference between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional if they also ask for bribes?” the developer screamed.

The developer then asked me what he should do. “Should I pay the money?” he asked. “Can I get a guarantee that I will get my approval after I pay?”

I told the developer that we kicked out Barisan Nasional and replaced it with Pakatan Rakyat because we wanted to end corruption. If we now pay under-the-table money to Pakatan Rakyat, then why the hell did we bother to kick out Barisan Nasional? We might as well have just retained Barisan Nasional.

The developer did not pay the money and, of course, his project is now in tatters. But he swore he was going to campaign against Pakatan Rakyat in the coming general election.

Okay, that is the first case. If the MACC wants to talk to the developer let me know. Anyway, that person also reads Malaysia Today so he is probably aware of this already (and probably pissing in his pants by now).

Now, let us go to the next case, which, if not corruption, is certainly a conflict of interest.

This next case is regarding some scams involving the amount of legal work dished out by the legal department of MBPJ. This work is being given exclusively to a group of lawyers who are all PKR leaders.

This large amount of legal work to these chosen few has caused immense unhappiness amongst the other Pakatan Rakyat council members in MBPJ, who have chosen to remain silent for the sake of ‘party unity’. They feel that if they speak out that may jeopardise Pakatan Rakyat’s chances of retaining Selangor in the next general election.

The principle characters are lawyers Derrick Fernandez and Lateefa Koya, who are also both MBPJ councillors and PKR leaders, the Member of Parliament for Subang, R. Sivarasa, and the newly-minted Vice President of PKR, N. Surendran. Lateefa is also employed by Daim and Gamany, Sivara’s legal firm.

A good chunk of the legal work in MBPJ has been diverted to the firms of Sivarasa, Surendran and Derrick through the influence of Lateefa Koya and Derrick. After all, this is a PKR-controlled council. Is this not corruption, or at least a conflict of interest?

Anwar Ibrahim is fully aware of this but does nothing about it. And Anwar does not need me to provide any figures or documents because the accounts can be procured from the MBPJ.

MBPJ has to be transparent and reveal the exact amount of work given to these three firms and the total fees paid over the few years that Pakatan Rakyat has ruled Selangor.

Daim and Gamany has moved from their humble office in the ‘slum’ Masjid India area to a new swank office near MBPJ. Surendran, on the other hand, is no longer the poor lawyer he used to be. He used to travel around in a beaten-up Proton Saga begging for work. Now, he is chauffer-driven in an expensive continental car. Talk about rags to riches in the blink of an eye.

Surendran’s firm is called Edwin Lim Suren & Soh and Derrick’s is Derrick Fernandez and Co. Sivarasa is also on the board of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor and is enjoying perks and director’s fees estimated in the tens of thousands a month, other than the spoils from his legal work.

Okay, as I said, let us start with these two cases while I gather the evidence for the other cases, which I will reveal in due course.

Why can’t the PKR people be more like Nik Aziz, the Kelantan MB? Do you know that Nik Aziz still lives in his old wooden house that does not even have a proper road leading to it? And when he does his prayers in the office, he switches off the lights because his prayers are his personal matter while the electricity is paid by the state government.

That is how I expect our elected leaders to conduct themselves.

And, yes, I still support Pakatan Rakyat and I urge you to do the same. But do we want to wait until Pakatan Rakyat becomes just like Barisan Nasional before we scream? We need them to clean up their act now. I suspect that the next general election will be held in March 2013. That means we have more than a year to set things right.

So, just do it! I said DO IT, not DUIT!

What Malaysia needs: my ‘advice’ to Umno

Yes, changes came in many countries. But in most cases it was not because of the elections. It was because the government acted brutally and undemocratically against its own citizens. So we need you to act brutally and undemocratically against peace-loving Malaysians so that we can see what happened in the Philippines, Indonesia and Egypt also happen in Malaysia.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is talk that a roundup will be launched starting from tonight and those behind the BERSIH rally of 9th July 2011 are going to be detained.
There is talk that ‘both sides’ of the BERSIH rally are going to be detained, which will include Ibrahim Ali and Khairy Jamaluddin.
There is talk that the roundup this time around will not be as big as Operasi Lalang of 27th October 1987 when 106 dissidents, activists and opposition leaders were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
There is talk that the ISA will not be used against these people but those rounded up will be ‘kept out of circulation’ and off the streets for a while just to ‘cool things down’ a bit.
There is talk that the army has been told to be on stand-by in case it is needed to ‘restore law and order’ on 9th July 2011.
There is talk that the army has been ordered to ‘shed blood’ if necessary in its effort to ‘restore law and order’.
There is talk that if the army is told to act aggressively against fellow Malaysians the soldiers will refuse to do so and will instead join the ranks of the demonstrators like what happened in so many other countries since the Russian revolution.

There is talk that thousands of PAS ‘red shirts’ or Unit Amal will form a human barricade against the police and/or army on 9th July 2011 to ensure that the ‘yellow shirt’ demonstrators are safe from harm even if many of the ‘red shirts’ need to die a jihadist’s death in the pursuit of amar makruf, nahi munkar.
There is talk that the BERSIH rally will be a purely Malay affair because the Chinese and Indians are too scared and extremely selfish and will stay away although they are the ones who talk the most.
There is talk that this time around more Chinese and Indians are going to be on the streets compared to the first BERSIH rally of 10th November 2007 because the Chinese and Indians want to show the government what they think of the racial and religious discrimination they are being subjected to.

There is talk that the BERSIH rally will turn into a civil war and Malaysia is going to end up like Egypt with Umno out of power and Najib-Rosmah seeking asylum in Singapore together with a planeload of Birkin handbags and Jimmy Choo shoes.
There is talk that the government wants to use 9th July 2011 as the excuse to declare an emergency and suspend Parliament and subject the country to NOC-rule a la the aftermath of 13th May 1969 (which means no need for general elections).
There is talk that less than 50,000 people will be on the streets on 9th July 2011.
There is talk that 100,000 people or more will be on the streets on 9th July 2011.
There is talk that not less than 300,000 people will be on the streets on 9th July 2011.
There is talk that the ratio of BERSIH to PERKASA-UMNO demonstrators will be 20:1 and the Malay KKK crowd will run for cover and hide their sorry arses.
There is talk that the ratio of BERSIH to PERKASA-UMNO demonstrators will be 20:1 and the Malay KKK crowd will call upon the police and riot squad to help ‘even the odds’.

There is talk that none of the above will happen and 9th July 2011 will come and go and a few thousand people will march peacefully and go home and the entire thing will be a non-event.
Anyway, whatever may be the scenario we will really see over these next two weeks and on 9th July 2011, let me ‘advice’ Umno and Najib on what Malaysia needs.
What we need is for the government to start rounding up people.
What we need is for the government to act brutally against the demonstrators on 9th July 2011.
What we need is for an emergency to be declared.
What we need is for Parliament to be suspended.
What we need is for the NOC to be formed to take over the running of the country.

That is what we need and we need this because this is what Marcos, Suharto, Mubarak, etc., did and this resulted in them being ousted from power and democracy being restored in the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, etc.
So, Umno, make my day. Do what we need you to do and watch the changes that we fought for so long finally come to Malaysia.
Yes, changes came in many countries. But in most cases it was not because of the elections. It was because the government acted brutally and undemocratically against its own citizens. So we need you to act brutally and undemocratically against peace-loving Malaysians so that we can see what happened in the Philippines, Indonesia and Egypt also happen in Malaysia.

WIKILEAKS: Malaysia's New Economic Model

He noted barriers to non-bumiputras in the job market, starting and growing businesses, purchasing housing, and educational opportunities began a move of many well educated non-bumiputra Malaysians to emigrate. The fact that 800,000 young Malaysians are now working abroad, 300,000 having emigrated in the past 18 months, including increasing numbers of ethnic Malays was recently noted in Parliament. Malaysia's "brain drain" has begun to get the attention of policy makers, according to Husni.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 KUALA LUMPUR 000103

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EAP/MTS FOR DBISCHOF
STATE FOR EEB/IFD/OMA FOR BSAUNDERS AND AWHITTINGTON
STATE PASS USTR - WEISEL AND BELL
STATE PASS FEDERAL RESERVE AND EXIMBANK
STATE PASS FEDERAL RESERVE SAN FRANCISCO TCURRAN
SINGAPORE PASS SBLEIWEIS
USDOC FOR 4430/MAC/EAP/MHOGGE
TREASURY FOR OASIA AND IRS
GENEVA FOR USTR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/19/2020
TAGS: ECON, EFIN, ENIV, EXIM, MY, PGOV
SUBJECT: MALAYSIA’S NEW ECONOMIC MODEL: ECONOMIC REFORM EFFORTS MAY MEET OPPOSITION

REF: A. 09 KUALA LUMPUR 303
        B. 09 KUALA LUMPUR 318
        C. 09 KUALA LUMPUR 887

1.  (C) Summary:  Prime Minister Najib Razak (Najib) introduced a first wave of limited economic reforms (refs A and B) shortly after taking office in April 2009 and has promised more substantial economic reforms designed to improve Malaysia's competitiveness (ref C). 
To accomplish this, Najib formed the National Economic Advisory Committee (NEAC) to develop a New Economic Model (NEM), an economic policy roadmap which he hopes will lead Malaysia from middle income to high income country status. 
Little has been revealed about the contents of the NEM, but government officials say it is intended to address Malaysia's "stagnating" economy, by improving education, reducing corruption, strengthening weak public institutions, reconfiguring emigration, cutting back on government over-involvement in the private sector, and increasing low domestic investment rates. 
Leading Malaysian economists believe that Najib is sincere in his desire to address these problems.  However, they question his ability to make major changes in the government's long-standing discriminatory Bumiputera preference policies which have discouraged domestic investment and new business formation and are driving the "brain drain" of young professional Malaysians frustrated with limited opportunities under this  system.
Economists here expect Najib's effort to establish a policy framework that will foster a more gradual move away from ethnic preferences to a merit-based economy, but believe that may be insufficient.  If PM Najib is unable to deliver on NEM reforms, they expect the opposition will seize the reform agenda as an issue for possible 2012 elections.  
Executing a robust NEM, however, will be even more difficult as the PM will undoubtedly face steady opposition from within his own political party (UMNO), particularly from members who fear their parliamentary seats may be lost if the current patronage system is dismantled.  End Summary.
The New Economic Model: Reigniting High Growth
2.  (C) Since Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak (Najib) took office in April 2009, he has called for Malaysia to move from a low value-added, manufacturing-for-export oriented middle income economy to a knowledge-based service oriented high income economy.  He has used the rubric of former Prime Minister Mahathir's Vision 2020 goal of reaching "high-income country" status by the year 2020 as his call to action to justify developing a "New Economic Model" (NEM) to promote economic transformation. 
PM Najib quickly announced an investment liberalization agenda and by April 2009 implemented a first tranche of reforms aimed at reducing bumiputra (ethnic Malays and other non-Chinese or Indian ethnicities) ownership requirements in 27 different non-influential service sectors (e.g. veterinary services and ship salvage and refloatation services) and allow foreign controlling ownership interests in some types of financial institutions (Ref A). 
PM Najib announced a second tranche of reforms late in April including reducing bumiputra ownership requirements on all listed companies from 30% to 12.5% and repealing Foreign Investment Commission guidelines on new mergers and acquisitions by foreign firms (Ref B). 
In July, PM Najib formed the National Economic Advisory Committee (NEAC) and charged the new body - made up of high profile Malaysian and non-Malaysian economic figures - with developing the NEM.  In his October 23 budget speech (Ref C), PM Najib promised additional economic reforms.
Financial Crisis and Capital Flight Push GOM to Reform
3. (C) Najib has been forced to consider a broader reform program because the Global financial crisis (GFC) has put tremendous pressure on the underpinnings of Malaysia's economic growth.  FDI has slowed to a trickle, $15 billion of portfolio investment departed in 2009 and has just begun to return, and there remain large domestic reverse investment outflows as Malaysian conglomerates focus on overseas rather than domestic investment. 
According to a January 8 UBS Securities report, Malaysia experienced net capital out flows in excess of $27 billion from mid-2008 to mid-2009.  More telling, the UBS report states Malaysia has not experienced net capital inflows in any one calendar year since 1997.  UBS cites domestic investors investing outside Malaysia as the primary source of the outflows. 
PriceWaterhouse Coopers Consulting Malaysia (PWC) General Manager Pearlene Cheong described Western multi-national corporate interest in investing in Malaysia as "dormant" and that ethnic Chinese Malaysians had been taking their money out of Malaysia ever since the Asian financial crisis.  She said that PWC's investor advisory business has seen primarily North Asian investors working in the extractive industries focused in East Malaysia and added, "This is not the knowledge-based type of employment that the government is looking for to stimulate wage growth."
Bold Statements Calling for Change
4. (C) The Najib administration has identified several areas of the economy needing reform and has announced its intentions to carry out reforms through the NEM.  In a December 1 speech to the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, Finance Minister II Husni said Malaysia's economy was "stagnating" and highlighted Malaysia's most pressing economic issues needing to be addressed by the NEM as education, corruption, GOM economic over-management, weak public institutions, emigration, and low domestic investment rates.
Education: Husni said, "Our universities are a disappointment." He cited Malaysia as having its highest unemployment rate for recent college graduates while adding that there is a severe shortage of skilled workers, implying that large numbers of Malaysian recent college graduates are unskilled.  Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah reported that skilled labor shortages and the poor quality of Malaysian graduates costs Malaysian competitiveness 15% of GDP annually.
Corruption and Cronyism: He cited the recently released Transparency International 2009 Corruption Perception Index, in which Malaysia fell to number 56 of 180 countries, its lowest rating in over 20 years, and continuing a fall from number 26 in 2004. 
Husni promised wholesale reform in government procurement practices, controlled by the Ministry of Finance, and an end to sole source contracts, except for the military.
GOM Over-involvement in the Economy: Husni called for the transparent divestiture of GOM interests in government-linked corporations (GLCs) and the restoration of the private sector's role as the primary engine for growth.  He also cited that the GOM needs to discontinue open-ended protection of domestic industries, allow market driven resource allocation including greater precision in subsidy allocation, and foster better competition policies to spur innovation.
Weak Public Institutions: Husni criticized the lack of diversity in the civil service and proposed strengthening public institutions through greater ethnic participation.
Brain Drain: He noted barriers to non-bumiputras in the job market, starting and growing businesses, purchasing housing, and educational opportunities began a move of many well educated non-bumiputra Malaysians to emigrate.  The fact that 800,000 young Malaysians are now working abroad, 300,000 having emigrated in the past 18 months, including increasing numbers of ethnic Malays was recently noted in Parliament. Malaysia's "brain drain" has begun to get the attention of policy makers, according to Husni.
Low Domestic Investment: Since 1997, domestic investment rates halved from 20-25% of GDP annually to roughly 10% and have remained at reduced levels for the past decade.  Husni said that the 1Malaysia concept is intended to introduce competition and move Malaysia to a more performance-based culture like Japan, Korean, and Singapore, promoting an attractive investment and working environment for all Malaysians.
NEM to be Broad and Wide-Ranging
5.  (C) The government and our contacts have released few details of the upcoming NEM.  However, PM Najib announced December 22 at the Finance Ministry's "Media Night" that he had approved the NEM direction, and that the final model will be presented to the Cabinet and made public by the end of February 2010.  The NEM will "set the direction of the economy and make the economy more resilient", according to Najib. 
NEAC Acting Director of Research Tong Yee Siong, said the NEAC met the week of February 1-5 to finalize its recommendations to the Cabinet for approval and public release by the end of February.  Tong told Econoffs that the NEAC will produce goal papers and an economic model framework.  Tong expected the recommendations to be very broad, and would propose a policy framework to address the most significant economic issues facing Malaysia and improve its economic competitiveness. 
Nicholas Zefferies, the president of AmCham, and the only "foreign" member of the NEAC, told Econ Counselor January 13 that NEAC reform recommendations to PM Najib would be wide-ranging.  Zefferies said that Najib was planning to give NEAC powers similar to the Prime Minister's Special Task Force to Facilitate Business (Pemudah), to enforce the planned economic reform program on government Ministries.
Economic Reform Versus Ethnic Preferences
6.  (C) Tong told us that the NEAC is focused on removing disincentives to domestic investment established in the New Economic Policy (NEP) as a key to reinvigorating domestic and foreign investment.  He added that any basis for serious economic and investment reform efforts in Malaysia involves dismantling old entrenched Bumiputra ethnic preferences established since the Mahathir regime in the NEP. 
Finance Minister II Husni's speech was important for connecting Najib's 1Malaysia slogan to real economic reform, according to Malaysian Institute for Economic Research Managing Director and long-time UMNO economic advisor Mohamed Ariff.
However, as Husni criticized Malaysia's longstanding ethnic preference policies, he qualified his statements by asserting that "the government is not abandoning bumiputras" and that the government will pursue reform in "a prudent and cautious method" in an effort to allay bumiputra fears of economic displacement. 
Ariff told us that the Husni speech angered some senior UMNO members who complained that Najib was opening the economy too much and moving too fast toward reform.  Opposition parliament members praised the speech, according to Ariff.
PM Najib Seeks Incremental Reform
7.  (C) Our economic contacts close to PM Najib said they were convinced he is sincere about wanting economic reform. Economic Planning Unit Deputy Director General K. Govindan, who briefs PM Najib and the cabinet weekly on Malaysian economic performance and economic policy, told us he believes PM Najib understands in general terms the reforms needed to improve human capital and productivity, increase trade and investment, and reduce corruption. 
Nevertheless, Govindan said he does not make specific economic policy recommendations at those meetings for fear of offending other Ministers in the meeting who oppose the reform agenda. 
Ariff also believes PM Najib legitimately seeks economic reform. Ariff told us PM Najib's words to him were "change or be changed" when referring to economic reform.  But Ariff also said he expected PM Najib to slowly pick away at the NEP without causing too much economic and political disruption. This will require regularly announcing small reforms rather than the sweeping reforms required to transform the economy.
Ariff offered the February NEM release and the June 2010 release of the 10th 5-year Malaysia Plan as two upcoming opportunities for Najib to roll out more economic reforms.
Safe Won't Work
8.  (C) In the view of our economist contacts, PM Najib's "politically friendly" incremental strategy to economic reform may end up being too little too late.  Tong projected that for reform to work, the PM will need to make a bold announcement on major reforms and then rally public support for change.  Tong said that NEAC members are advocating that PM Najib announce significant structural changes to Malaysia's economy as a part of the NEM. 
Govindan agreed that major structural changes are needed for sustained economic growth.  He added that a series of small reform programs will eventually limit Malaysia to an unacceptably low 3-4% annual growth rate that will keep the country trapped in middle income status until "politics are removed from education and the economy." 
The critical point, Ariff said, was that while Malaysia continued taking baby steps on economic reform, its competitors for investment such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam would be overtaking Malaysia as the first choice for foreign direct investment.
Ruling Party May Block Aggressive Reform
9.  (C) Each of our contacts agreed that political will is the key to reform, but none are convinced all of the coming announcements of plans to reform Malaysia's economy will be backed by substantially broad concrete measures. 
Ariff told us that after early enthusiasm for economic reform, some UMNO insiders do not want reform that would take away the economic rents and patronage system they have relied on to maintain the party's power base for over a generation. 
Ariff predicted that UMNO would not survive in power by moving to an open and transparent system and that UMNO insiders would challenge Najib if he moved too strongly on government reform. 
Govindan sees Malaysia's huge and largely ethnic Malay civil service, completely loyal to UMNO, but increasingly incompetent, as PM Najib's largest obstacle.  He commented that the civil service has a very narrow worldview and will oppose, even refuse to implement, reforms perceived as damaging ethnic Malay interests, even if convinced of the long-run gains for Malaysia. 
Tong told us that achieving any of the goals developed by the NEAC will require significant political buy-in to operationalize the policy changes necessary to reinvigorate investment and spur additional growth.  However, Tong commented that NEAC members are frustrated with a lack of high-level political commitment outside of PM Najib as well as the slow responses from Ministries which impeded progress on the NEM. 
He added that some NEAC members are concerned that the NEM maybe merely a public relations exercise that will have no real long-term policy impact.  Zeffries told us that he was not confident that PM Najib has a sufficiently strong political position to pursue the NEAC's upcoming proposals.  Liew described the opposition closely watching economic reform, offering that an inability of the ruling coalition to implement promised economic reforms will provide powerful political ammunition for use in upcoming federal elections in 2012.
Ethnic Minorities Support Reform
10.  (C) Cheong sees her Malaysian private sector business clients as highly supportive of the type of economic opening she believes PM Najib will announce in the NEM and commented that ethnic Chinese, Indian, and urban Malays not directly benefitting from UMNO patronage will strongly support economic reform efforts, but that rural Malays, a strong UMNO constituent base, will fear changes labeled as detrimental to Bumiputra interests. 
However, Cheong observed that Non-Bumiputras have successfully competed in the open economy at a disadvantage to Bumiputra and government linked businesses for over 30 years and that Malaysians would patiently wait for change.  She added that the lack of investment is so obvious that the government is practically being forced to take action.
KEITH

Why Pakatan Rakyat is NOT going to form the next federal government

This is not a new subject matter. I have written about this so many times in the past. Some of you may remember my article entitled “Votes do not translate into seats”? Well, today, I have no choice but to repeat what I have already told you before.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin
My friend Nat Tan has hit the nail on the head in his article entitled 60pc of vote, 93pc of seats? published in The Malaysian Insider today (which you can read here: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/article/60pc-of-vote-93pc-of-seats/)

A similar article written by Nia Nymue in his Blog entitled PAP won 90% of seats but only 60% of votes can be read here: http://nianymue.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/pap-won-90-of-seats-but-only-60-of-votes/

They were of course talking about the recent Singapore elections. But they could easily have also been talking about the Malaysian elections. And this is what I want to talk about, again, today -- in spite of sounding like I am repeating myself too many times.

On 11th May 1969 (two days before ‘May 13’), the ruling party (then the Alliance Party of Umno, MCA and MIC) won less than 50% of the votes. Yet it managed to form the federal government because it still won more the 50% of the seats in Parliament (66% of the seats to be exact).

In 1974, the newly formed ruling coalition called Barisan Nasional won less than two-thirds of the votes (60.7%) but it still won 88% of the seats in Parliament.

In 1978, the votes for the ruling coalition dropped to 57.2% but it sill won 84% of the seats in Parliament.

In 1982, the votes for the ruling coalition were still below two-thirds (60.5%) but it managed to win 86% of the seats in Parliament.

In 1986, the ruling coalition’s votes dropped to 55.8% but it won 84% of the seats in Parliament.

In 1990, the ruling coalition’s votes dropped even further to 53.4% but it still won more than two-thirds of the seats (71%).

In 1995, the ruling coalition ‘recovered’ by winning 65.2% of the votes which gave them 84% of the seats in Parliament.

1999 was a blow to the ruling coalition. That was the era of Reformasi and the Anwar Ibrahim ‘Sodomy 1’ crisis. In November of that year the ruling coalition won only 56.5% of the votes. Yet it won 77% of the seats in Parliament.

2004 was the best performance in history for the ruling coalition. It won more than 90% of the seats in Parliament. But it managed this on less than two-thirds of the votes (63.9%). So the best Barisan Nasional could do is less than two-thirds of the votes.

Then we come to the ‘landmark’ March 2008 general election. The ruling coalition did its worse since May 1969. It won only 52.2% of the votes (because of Sabah and Sarawak -- if not then less than 50% like in 1969). And for the first time since May 1969 it lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament when it won only 63% of the seats.

So, 2004 was the best since Merdeka for the ruling party. And 2008 was the worse in history. But can you see what the figures show? And that is Barisan Nasional loses votes but wins seats. And it is the seats that give it the federal government, not votes.

Note this also.

In the first election (Municipal elections) two years before Merdeka in 1955, Umno and its cronies swept the country in a landslide election victory (they lost only one seat to the opposition).

In the second election (the First Parliamentary election) two years after Merdeka in 1959, the ruling coalition went down.

In the third election in 1964 (the Second Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went up.

In the fourth election in 1969 (the Third Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went down.

In the fifth election in 1974 (the Fourth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went up.

In the sixth election in 1978 (the Fifth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went down.

In the seventh election in 1982 (the Sixth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went up.

In the eighth election in 1986 (the Seventh Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went down.

In the ninth election in 1990 (the Eighth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went down.

In the tenth election in 1995 (the Ninth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went up.

In the eleventh election in 1999 (the Tenth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went down.

In the twelfth election in 2004 (the Eleventh Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went up.

In the thirteenth election in 2008 (the Twelfth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition went down.

In the fourteenth election, (2011, 2012, or 2013) whenever it may be, (the Thirteenth Parliamentary election), the ruling coalition will go up or down? If according to the ‘trend’ since 1955 then it must certainly be UP -- unless trends lie.

Now, the two points I want to make is this.

The ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, can still form the federal government even with a minimum of votes. The question would be whether it is with a two-thirds majority or a simple majority. But it will still form the government nevertheless.

The second point is the ruling coalition yoyos from one election to another. It goes down one election and up the next. 2008 was the ‘down’ period. Will the next election be ‘up’ if this trend proves consistent?

Ponder on that. To kick out Barisan Nasional it requires a huge mother of all Earthquake-cum-Tsunami. A slight swing is not enough. Just an Earthquake or just a Tsunami will also not do. It must be a combination of an Earthquake and a Tsunami.

Malaysia Today’s readers are experts when it comes to grumbling, bitching, complaining, lamenting, and blowing hot air. Expert cakap banyak. What are YOU going to do about this sorry scenario? Are you prepared to bite the bullet?

Never mind whether Raja Petra Kamarudin has done a U-turn. Never mind if Raja Petra Kamarudin has sold out or gone over to the other side. Forget about Raja Petra. Fuck Raja Petra. Raja Petra is just one man amongst 28 million Malaysians and he is no longer even living in Malaysia. What are YOU doing?

The billion ringgit question is what are YOU going to do about this predicament other than grumble, bitch, complain, lament, blow hot air, cakap banyak and use Raja Petra Kamarudin as a punching bag to vent your frustrations at not even having the balls to reveal your true identity in Malaysia Today?

The honeymoon is over

Never underestimate the people. You make false promises to the voters and they will punish you the next time around. And, today, we are seeing this happen in the UK. 
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER 
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Just a year in office and the honeymoon is over. Even my wife and son voted against my party, LibDem. While I voted LibDem, my wife voted Conservative and my son voted Labour. And no, I did not divorce my wife or disown my son like what would happen in many parts of Malaysia (I have seen this with my own eyes happen in Terengganu). 
So there you have it. People’s Power! It shows what your vote can do. It also shows that the darling of the voters barely a year ago can be the pariah today. 
So where does that place Pakatan Rakyat? Pakatan Rakyat was the darling of the voters three years ago. Is it a pariah today? If the 13th General Election were to be called later this year can it retain its 80 plus seats in Parliament, retain the four states it presently commands, and win back Perak, or will it drop to 50 Parliament seats and two states (Penang and Kelantan)? 

Never underestimate the people. You make false promises to the voters and they will punish you the next time around. And, today, we are seeing this happen in the UK.
That’s why I just love the UK. In the UK the government works for us. The politicians are our servants. And if they screw up we can screw them back good and proper. 
Okaylah, I know. I have heard all your arguments before. Malaysia different, Britain different. In the UK the people are civilised, matured and educated. In Malaysia we are mostly barbarians. In England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland you use your brains. In Malaysia we use our emotions and racial and religious sentiments. The British can’t be bribed, they have principles. Malaysians can be bought with just RM100 and they will let you screw their daughter or wife for a mere few thousand. 
As I said, I have heard all these arguments before so no need to post them again in the comments section below. And I accept without dispute your argument that most Malaysians are prostitutes and will prostitute themselves to Barisan Nasional for any small amount of money. I am convinced so no need to convince me any further. 
Hey, the fact that the PKR leaders are telling everyone that I have been bought just proves what is always in the minds of Malaysians. It is always about being bought. Nothing but about being bought. That is the only thing in their minds. 
Well, let me show you how WE British do things. Read the news reports below. 

****************************************** 

Vote 2011 Live: Lib Dems routed at polls in Greater Manchester council elections 
Furious Liberal Democrats rounded on Nick Clegg as the party suffered a hammering in Greater Manchester. 
A string of shock results saw the Lib Dems lose control of their long-term stronghold of Stockport. 
They also suffered a complete wipeout in Manchester – failing to win a single seat and losing their group leader Simon Ashley. 
Voters across the region appeared to be expressing anger at swingeing government cuts to town hall budgets that have seen the urban north hit harder than the rural south. 
Read more here: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/politics/s/1419977_vote-2011-live-lib-dems-routed-at-polls-in-greater-manchester-council-elections 

Vote 2011: Labour wins all 33 seats in Manchester as Lib Dems are wiped out 
Manchester's Liberal Democrats suffered a wipeout in a sensational night for the city’s ruling Labour group. 
The Lib Dems lost all the seats they were defending on a shocking night for the party at Manchester Central. 
It proved a momentous count for Labour – which won all 33 seats up for grabs, boosting its majority to the highest level in more than a quarter of a century. 
Read more here: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/politics/s/1419998_vote-2011-labour-wins-all-33-seats-in-manchester-as-lib-dems-are-wiped-out

Election results show collapse in support for Lib Dems 
Nick Clegg suffered a humiliating reverse in his Sheffield backyard when the Liberal Democrats were ejected from power in the city, amid heavy losses for the party across northern England. 
As voters punished the Lib Dems for their performance after a year in government, the party blamed a "decapitation strategy" by Labour and the unions which saw it lose power in Hull and suffer big losses in Manchester and Liverpool. 
Read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/06/election-results-collapse-lib-dems

Poll bloodbath for Lib Dems 
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg suffered a massive blow to his authority today as his Liberal Democrat party fell victim to a bloodbath in elections in England, Scotland and Wales - and probable defeat on the totemic issue of electoral reform. 
The Lib Dems lost swathes of seats in former council strongholds in the north of England to Labour, while haemorrhaging support to the Scottish National Party north of the border. 
Read more here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/poll-bloodbath-for-lib-dems-2279970.html

Clegg suffers double blow and faces party backlash 
Nick Clegg was heading for a humiliating double defeat early today in the English council elections and the referendum on the voting system. 
There were signs of a backlash against Mr Clegg from some of his MPs and councillors as the first local authority results emerged in the early hours of this morning. Lib Dem officials conceded they would suffer a bloody nose in the North of England, where Labour mounted a fightback in its traditional strongholds. 
Read more here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/clegg-suffers-double-blow-and-faces-party-backlash-2279854.html

It’s so nice to be able to gloat

I felt good. They tried to screw me and now they got screwed instead. They thought they would punish me for walking away by charging me under Section 501 instead of 203. And now they realise it was a big mistake and that they set a trap for me which ended up trapping themselves instead.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin
It’s a nice feeling when you are able to look the Malaysian Police to their face, laugh at them, and tell them that they fucked up big time. It’s equally satisfying when they admit it by not admitting it but by trying to put the blame of this super-blunder on someone else.

This was last night. I was already sleeping when my phone rang. My wife answered the phone and told me that the police were waiting for me downstairs. I called Haris Ibrahim who told me to wait in my room. “I will come over and we will go downstairs together,” he said.

My wife said she was also coming and the three of us went to meet the three police officers. They no longer needed me to go to the Malaysian embassy for my official statement to be recorded, they told me. This was a social visit. They merely wanted to have a ‘friendly chat’.

We adjourned to the lobby bar for a drink and a ‘friendly chat’. Basically, this whole ‘friendly chat’ was about my TV3 interview in Perth. There are some ‘gaps’ not covered by the interview, which they needed my help to fill in.

Understandably, the TV3 interviewer is not a police officer, so he did not ask certain questions that the police would have asked. After all, it was an interview and not a crime investigation.

I asked them whether they had seen the full length TV3 interview. They confirmed that they had. I then asked them how long was the interview. How many minutes? One police officer said it was 17 minutes.

I turned and glared at this police officer. “I said the full length interview. The full length is not 17 minutes. It is more than one hour, maybe one hour 40 minutes or so.”

ACP Aziz, his boss, replied he had seen the full-length version. “One hour plus?” I asked him. He confirmed it was one hour plus.

He then asked me a few things that were not mentioned in the interview, the gaps that I was talking about.

I then took this long-awaited opportunity to laugh in their faces. I had waited three years to finally look ACP Aziz in his face and laugh at him and imply that he is an idiot. And I did not mince my words to make him feel small. (Of course, he kept deflecting by saying that that was the decision of the Attorney-General, not his decision).

Anyway, before I ramble on and get myself into another of my cheong hei articles, let me cut to the chase.

When I signed my statutory declaration, the police (the police blame the AG, of course) did not want to charge me under Section 203 -- that is, a crime for signing a false SD. If they did then they would have had to prove it and I, in turn, would be allowed to challenge the charge by bringing my witnesses and evidence to court.

By charging me under Section 501 they can bypass all this because the truth of the matter is not material to the charge. Therefore, the court is not interested in the truth because even if what I signed in my SD is true I still go to jail.

And that was why I refused to respond to the charge and shouted at the judge that the charge is both defective and mala fide. But the court ignored me and instead took that as a plea of not guilty.

Clever right? Not quite, because over the next three years they spun the story that I had made an allegation against Rosmah Mansor, Col Norhayati Hassan and Col Aziz Buyong. In fact, the two colonels even sued me for RM1 million.

For three years I had to live under this dark cloud, the man who made that stupid allegation against Rosmah. And they played up this issue to the hilt.

And now this issue is hurting them bad and they want to untangle themselves from this web of deceit that they themselves spun. They realise that the issue of me making an allegation against Rosmah will not go away, as they had hoped, and Najib Tun Razak’s enemies in Umno are trying to use this issue to bring him down -- just like how they brought Abdullah Ahmad Badawi down two years ago.

But how are they going to get themselves out of this sticky situation? It was they who charged me under Section 501 instead of section 203. It was they who spun the story that I made an allegation against Rosmah. Now they want that story corrected.

And that was how they came up with his hare-brained idea of the TV3 interview.

And this was their second blunder.

Their agenda was to make it clear that I never made any allegation against Rosmah -- not then, not now. Some dunggu in TV3, however, decided to spin it another way. Instead of coming out with the story of me NEVER alleging that Rosmah was at the scene of the crime (and that the allegation was in fact made by someone else but reported by me), they spun it that I have now made a U-turn.

Maybe they thought they could kill two birds with one stone. Clear Rosmah and discredit me at the same time.

Clever right?

Not so clever. By spinning this ‘Raja Petra did a U-turn’ story, they just got themselves into a Bala SD1 and SD2 situation (a.k.a. ‘Bala U-turn’). Maybe they thought they could kill me. Instead, they failed to get the people to focus on what they wanted the people to focus on.

Last night I asked ACP Aziz why he tried to screw me with the wrong charge. He said that it was not he but the AG who did this. He then blamed me for it. “Why did you not clarify this when we called you for interrogation?” he asked me. (I in fact walked off when he tried to interrogate me and this was probably why he wanted to fix me up with the wrong charge).

“Can’t you read simple English?” I asked him. “My English is so simple even Malay-medium students can understand what I write. Pasal tu lah, suruh pergi sekolah tak mahu belajar.”

“It was not me, the decision on the charge was the AG,” he repeated.

“If you had told us what you said in your TV3 interview then we would not all be in this mess. But since you refused to give your statement we did not know the real story and charged you for the wrong crime.”

I felt good. They tried to screw me and now they got screwed instead. They thought they would punish me for walking away by charging me under Section 501 instead of 203. And now they realise it was a big mistake and that they set a trap for me which ended up trapping themselves instead.

First they screwed up on the charge. Then they screwed up on the TV3 interview when they spun it the wrong way. And now they need to crawl back to me, smile sweetly the entire night, buy me a drink, and try to get me on their side. Then they had to continue smiling while I whacked them and called them stupid, much to the delight of Haris who was smirking as the police cringed.

So there you have it. They tried to fix me up in 2008 and it backfired because of the wrong charge. Then they tried to do damage control by interviewing me on TV3 and again it backfired when they spun the U-turn story (and chose the Sarawak elections to air the interview). And now, with their tails between their legs, they need to come and see me on my terms.

Revenge is sweet and is best served cold. I am one satisfied man.

Love is more powerful than hate

If the opposition wins 35% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will win 90% of the seats. If the opposition wins 45% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will still rule with a two-thirds majority. If the opposition wins 50% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will still rule with a simple but large majority. If the opposition wins 55% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will still rule with a very slim majority. If the opposition wins 60% of the votes, then Barisan Nasional would probably lose the government. If the opposition wins 65% of the votes, then Barisan Nasional will for sure lose the government.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin
BN needs to study why it lost Chinese backing, says Khairy

(The Star) -- Barisan Nasional must continue to look after the interests of the Chinese community despite losing their support in the Sarawak election, said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.

He said Barisan needed to study why it lost the support of the Chinese community and take remedial action.

“I don’t agree with the argument that Barisan need not take care of the Chinese because they are not supporting the coalition.”

“We must pay attention to the needs of all races and demonstrate our intentions through action. We have to be fair to everyone,” he said after attending the Selangor MCA Youth forum here yesterday.

Khairy said Barisan had to admit that the Sarawak election results were poor compared to the last state election despite retaining a two-thirds majority.

This is because the Opposition had managed to capture more than double the seats compared with the seven seats it won in 2006, he said.

“The state election is a wake-up call. It will have an effect on the general election and we have to do more,” he said.

Khairy also said PKR could no longer call the shots in Sarawak after it was overtaken by the DAP as seen by the number of seats won by the two parties.

***************************************

The aftermath of the Sarawak state elections are questions/discussions about why Pakatan Rakyat could not deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in the Sarawak state assembly, why the Chinese swung to the opposition but not the others, why Pakatan won 45% of the popular vote but only 21% of the seats, how come the people do not hate Barisan Nasional and/or Taib Mahmud enough to kick them out, how come the crowds at the opposition rallies were enormous but it still could not translate to votes, and so on.

These are actually very old issues/topics/questions and I have spoken/written about them many, many times, even on the eve of the Sarawak state election in my Radio Australia interview, which you can hear at this link: (http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/39762-my-12-minute-interview-with-radio-australia).

In 2000, I wrote an article that was published in Harakah, the party newspaper of PAS: “The wakeup call that did not wake us up”. (http://www.freeanwar.net/April2004/Harakah_030404.htm)

In February 2003, I wrote an article that was published in the Free Anwar Campaign website: “The opposition needs to get its act together”. (http://www.freeanwar.net/june2002/facnews230802a.htm)

In September 2003, I wrote an article that was published in the Free Anwar Campaign website: “Tawan Kedah: Pipedream or pipeline?” (http://www.freeanwar.net/July2003/1999_Election_Analysis.htm)

In January 2004, I wrote an article that was also published in the Free Anwar Campaign website: “Only a revolution and not evolution can bring about change”. (http://www.freeanwar.net/Jan2004/facnews260104.htm)

In March 2004, I wrote an article that was published in the same website: “Crowds don’t translate to votes”. (http://www.freeanwar.net/Mar2004/Harakah_100304.htm)

Those were just some of the many articles I wrote and which were published in Harakah, Berita Keadilan (later called Seruan Keadilan) and the Free Anwar Campaign website.

I really don’t know whether I should repeat everything I have said before. Anyway, if you want to know what I have been saying from way back in 2000, just click those links and read on.

For those who do not like to read, which is basically the majority of Malaysians, let me summarise what I have been saying all these years.

First, don’t be fooled by the crowd turnout. In so many general elections and by-elections, the opposition attracts crowds in the tens of thousands while Barisan Nasional struggles to attract 100 people. But when the votes are counted, Barisan Nasional is the one who wins.

Second, you can’t hope for the voters to vote for you merely because they hate a certain leader or a certain party. You have to get them to vote for you because they love you and/or trust you. It must be a unity of love, not a unity of hate.

Third, if you depend on voters to vote for you because they are Chinese and you are also Chinese, or they are Muslim and you are also Muslim, then you have a very small market. You need to cut across racial and religious boundaries and get universal acceptance.

Fourth, as Peter Shroeder, the political adviser from Germany, said in 2001: voters the world over -- whether in Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia -- are all the same. The majority of them are selfish. They will want to know what they get for voting for you. It is not about ideals. It is about “what’s in it for me?” -- lower taxes, more money in my pocket, free education and medical benefits, better employment opportunities, welfare if I am not employed, housing, lower utility costs, etc.

Fifth, if the opposition wins 35% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will win 90% of the seats. If the opposition wins 45% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will still rule with a two-thirds majority. If the opposition wins 50% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will still rule with a simple but large majority. If the opposition wins 55% of the votes, Barisan Nasional will still rule with a very slim majority. If the opposition wins 60% of the votes, then Barisan Nasional would probably lose the government. If the opposition wins 65% of the votes, then Barisan Nasional will for sure lose the government.

Sixth, it is almost impossible for the opposition to win 60%-65% of the votes.

So there you have it. No, this is not an “I told you so” article. This is a “is the opposition on the right track” article. Granted the playing field is not level and there is extreme fraud and gerrymandering. But so was there in the last election and every election since Merdeka and every election from now till the end of time.

As Lee Iacocca said: don’t get mad, get even. The question is: what will the opposition need to do to get even? Hey, I am not the politician. Let the politicians answer that one. But whatever it may be, time and time again it has been proven you can’t win the election through ‘normal’ means. You will need a Tsunami. Only when you get a Tsunami will the swing be big enough to offset all the obstacles and handicaps that the opposition is faced with. If not, then the opposition is going to remain the opposition for a long time to come, except maybe in a few states.

Four years on and still investigating

Seven police officers (one of them, ASP Noor Azizul Rahim Bin Taharim, was the ADC to the IGP, Musa Hassan) plus two Chinese underworld figures (total nine people) signed Affidavits alleging that the IGP was not only involved but was behind the Chinese prostitution, gambling, drugs and money laundering syndicate.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin
On 18th March 2011, we ran a story called The Unholy Trinity Revisited. (You can read that story here: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/38872-the-unholy-trinity-revisited)

On 7th April 2011, the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs replied to the 17th March 2011 letter from the Member of Parliament for Bakri, Er Teck Hwa.

You can read a copy of the letter below.

The matter raised in the 17th March 2011 letter from MP Teck Hwa was something that happened back in 2007. That was four years ago.

What happened was this.

Seven police officers (one of them, ASP Noor Azizul Rahim Bin Taharim, was the ADC to the IGP, Musa Hassan) plus two Chinese underworld figures (total nine people) signed Affidavits alleging that the IGP was not only involved but was behind the Chinese prostitution, gambling, drugs and money laundering syndicate.

These Affidavits were published in Malaysia Today and which resulted in a host of legal problems for me when the police raided my house, confiscated my computers and various documents, and charged me for all sorts of crimes (plus detained me without trial under the Internal Security Act).

I knew my so-called crimes were partly related to these Affidavits (although they did not actually charge me for this) because during my eight-hour interrogation (for the so-called crime of sedition) the police asked me about these Affidavits. They, in fact, asked me how come I am so opposed to the IGP.

I knew then that this was the real issue although they said it was for a totally different issue that they are interrogating me. (Remember the Muhammad son of Muhammad story?)

My question is: according to the Deputy Minister’s letter, the matter is still under investigation, four years later. However, when it came to my issues, they could wrap up their investigation within just one week and drag me to court to be charged the very next day.

When it comes to those perceived as anti-government, they only need a week to wrap up the investigation and press charges. Anwar Ibrahim, the one-time Director of the CCID, Ramli Yussuf, lawyer Rosli Dahlan, and many more are examples of how the police need only days or weeks to wrap up their investigation and press charges.

But when it comes to those who walk in the corridors of power or those who serve those who walk in the corridors of power, four years on and they are still investigating the matter.

What happened to P.I. Balasubramaniam’s case? The MACC has taken his statement through his lawyer, Americk Sidhu. Bala replied to the MACC’s questions and signed an Affidavit, which was submitted to the MACC in July last year. Since then nothing has been heard about the matter.

This is an example of what we would call selective prosecution. Another word for selective prosecution would probably be persecution. Some people receive immunity even for the foulest of crimes while others are brought to book even when no crime has been committed and on totally fabricated charges.

Take my two charges as an example. I was charged for sedition for allegedly ‘insulting’ the Deputy Prime Minister’s wife when she has no official status in the government. I was further charged for criminal defamation.

The fact that these laws do not apply to a wife of someone in power was of no consequence to those who walk in the corridors of power. If I had insulted the King (Agong) then that would have been another matter because the Agong is mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. The Deputy Prime Minister’s wife is not, so she does not exist in that sense of the word.

In fact, to carry this argument further, the Constitution makes no mention of the Deputy Prime Minister. It only mentions the Prime Minister. So the Agong, the Raja Permaisuri Agong, and the Prime Minister are official posts, according to the Constitution. There is no Deputy Prime Minister, according to the Constitution.

If the Deputy Prime Minister is not ‘recognised’ by the Constitution how can the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister be an official post? And, therefore, how can I be charged for sedition and criminal defamation even if I did insult the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister?

That is the crux to the whole matter.

Something that is not a crime is made into a crime. And four years later they are still investigating nine Affidavits signed by seven police officers and two underworld figures against the IGP.

That is what we call Malaysia Boleh.

Baradan and MCA insulted His Majesty the Agong’s aunty

Are Baradan Kuppusamy, The Star and MCA saying that the Agong’s aunty is stupid? Let me hear it loud and clear. Is the Agong’s aunty stupid for refusing to shake the hands of men unless properly 'insulated'?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Read what Baradan Kuppusamy said in his piece below titled ‘Inconvenient marriage failing’, which was published in the MCA-owned newspaper, The Star, today. Note that MCA is regarded as an Umno running dog and which has now openly declared war not only on Islamic values, but on old traditional Malay values as well, and mocked them as stupid.
They can’t find any fault with the PAS candidate for the Tenang by-election so they are picking on just one ‘flaw’. And that so-called flaw is: she will not shake hands with a man unless properly ‘insulated’ with a glove or selendang.
Baradum, who I suppose is a Hindu Indian, must search his own roots and tell us whether it is Hindu or Indian culture/custom to shake hands, especially between men and women. In Thailand they do not normally shake hands either. They greet each other with Namaste.
This is what they say about Namaste:
Namaste is a common spoken greeting or salutation originating from India. It is a customary greeting when individuals meet, and a salutation upon their parting. Younger persons usually initiate the exchange with their elders. Initiating the exchange is seen as a sign of respect in other hierarchical settings. It is the common greeting in Nepal as well.
When spoken to another person, it is commonly accompanied by a slight bow made with hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointed upwards, in front of the chest. This gesture, called Añjali Mudrā (or Pranamasana), can also be performed wordlessly and carries the same meaning.
Namaste is not only done by Hindus in India but by Buddhists in Thailand as well. For all intents and purposes, shaking hands is a very western practice and not practiced by eastern people.
So what is the big deal about women refusing to shake the hands of men, especially those who may be strangers?
If Baradan Kuppusamy, The Star and MCA want to make this an issue then they should whack His Majesty the Agong's aunty as well. The Agong’s aunty also refuses to shake the hands of men unless she is properly ‘insulated’. If the PAS candidate for Tenang is stupid then the Agong’s aunty is also stupid.
Are Baradan Kuppusamy, The Star and MCA saying that the Agong’s aunty is stupid? Let me hear it loud and clear. Is the Agong’s aunty stupid for refusing to shake the hands of men unless properly 'insulated'?
Again, Baradan Kuppusamy, The Star and MCA, let me hear it loud and clear? Is the Agong’s aunty stupid for refusing to shake the hands of men unless properly 'insulated'?

*******************************************

Inconvenient marriage failing
By Baradan Kuppusamy
Increasingly the PAS-DAP alliance is fraying because not only are they at opposite ends of the pole but each is having difficulties justifying the other to the bemused electorate.
THE DAP is trapped in the unenviable position of not just supporting but also justifying some of the fundamentalist excesses of its ally PAS.
The party is trying hard and often failing to find a balance between its desire to see more Islam in daily life on one hand and on the other, win the support of non-Muslims without which it can’t rule the country.
It is an old dilemma that has returned to haunt both the DAP and PAS and evident two days into the Tenang by-election where PAS is preaching an Islamic state to Felda settlers but showing a more benign face to urban Chinese voters.
PAS and DAP are also on the defensive explaining why their candidate, former teacher Normala Sudirman, refuses to shake hands with voters and wears gloves.
The DAP is also outdoing itself presenting Normala to Chinese voters in a red coloured cheongsam complete with a red headscarf and decorated with calligraphy in keeping with the Chinese New Year theme.
They distribute leaflets with the word “change” in Mandarin and helped her meet hawkers, patrons and residents in Chinese majority areas like Labis and Tenang town.
While some hawkers and residents are upset and feel insulted that Normala does not shake hands and sometimes wears gloves, others try to be more understanding, saying this has to do with her religion or probably a strict Islamic upbringing.
But the issue has unexpectedly sparked a raging debate both in Tenang and outside and on cyberspace and probably could have an impact on voter sentiment.
Although the DAP and PAS dismiss the issue as “petty” and urged voters to look at the bigger picture, others say the issue is an example of the kind of conservatism that has no place in a moderate and secular society like Malaysia.
Each time Barisan raises the issue of PAS’ conservatism, it puts DAP on the defensive to explain and justify the excesses of its partner.
The list of items DAP has to swallow to keep PAS happy is getting longer by the month – from gender segregation in Kedah to grappling with PAS demands to cancel concerts to wanting to ban the sale of alcohol in Shah Alam and even demands that jawi should be bigger than rumi — romanised Bahasa Malaysia - on signboards.
PAS and DAP were political cats and dogs for a long time but under the deal hatched by PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 2008, both parties sunk their differences to work together and benefited with the DAP throwing its Chinese weight to PAS and vice-versa.
Many PAS leaders would have been defeated if not for Chinese voter support and likewise many DAP leaders saw their winning majorities hit the roof because of support from PAS members.
But that marriage of convenience, which also hugely benefited the PKR, comes with a price and the cost for DAP is probably the highest because the alliance with PAS catches it like a beached fish struggling for oxygen.
On one hand the DAP defends a secular society but on the other hand it advances PAS goals for greater Islamisation.
The DAP’s strategy to overcome this fundamental contradiction is to proverbially, run with the hare and hunt with the hound.
The DAP lets party chairman Karpal Singh openly and vociferously disagree with PAS and its goals but quietly works with the party allowing both to advance their contrary political aims.
One desires a fair, just and secular society while the other has the same dream but entirely based on Islam.
Nowhere is the fundamental differences between them more evident than in the spate of by-elections that were fought and lost by PAS.
The same contradictions are evident in the latest battle in Tenang where PAS’ fundamentalist rhetoric has easily surfaced in the party’s bitter struggle to win crucial Felda votes and gain a upper hand over Umno.
The party lost the Malay heartland seat of Galas in Kelantan that saw young Malays, put off by PAS’ rigid Islamic rhetoric, and together with urban Chinese, voted for Barisan Nasional.
Similarly in Felda Tenang, PAS openly espoused Islamic theocracy, hudud laws and raised the kafir mengkafir (infidel) issue that had dominated the party’s rhetoric in the 1980s.
Under this now resurrected theme it is a sin for Malays to vote for Umno because of Umno’s co-operation with non-Muslims.
But this PAS claim cannot hold water because of the party’s own cooperation with DAP.
Increasingly the PAS-DAP alliance is fraying because not only are they at opposite ends of the pole but each is having difficulties justifying the other to the bemused electorate.
To the PAS hardcore, Karpal Singh’s constant reminder that Malaysia is secular is a major roadblock while for the DAP the excesses of PAS – from banning concerts, mini-skirts, alcohol to supporting gender segregation and hudud laws – are all increasingly difficult to defend or justify.
No matter how innocent and harmless that refusal by Normala to shake hands, it has sparked a fierce debate.

About gloved hands and chopped hands

Muhyiddin may now be challenged to state his stand on Islam. He has passed a remark that appears to be a challenge to Islam. Muhyiddin may have to categorically declare whether he accepts or rejects Islam and the laws that come with it.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The level of campaigning in the Tenang by-election has been reduced somewhat. It is now about the wearing of gloves and the chopping of hands.

The MCA President, Chua Soi Lek, ridicules the opposition candidate because she shakes hands while wearing gloves. The Queen (of England, that is) also does the same. In fact, the Queen Mother was once criticised for taking off her gloves before she shook hands. It is considered most unlady-like to do that. And the late Lady Diana too wore gloves. There is also an archive of her glove collection, which you can see here:

http://www.operagloves.com/Royals/Diana/diana.html

So, yes, the ladies of English Royalty would not be caught dead without their gloves. And there is a healthy debate amongst the English public as to whether the ladies of English society should or should not wear gloves when shaking hands (just Google it and you will be taken to these debate sites). And most are of the opinion that if they are ladies then they should wear gloves.

But the MCA President would probably not understand this because he does not consort with ladies. And ‘ladies of the night’ are not quite what I mean when I say ladies. ‘Ladies of the night’ are…well, you know what I mean if you were to watch his action-packed videos. I really do not need to elaborate on this matter.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, in turn, ridicules the opposition on the cutting of hands. He is actually not criticising PAS, the party from which the opposition candidate comes from, as much as he is criticising Islam.

This quip may come back to haunt him as it did Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who made a remark about the Prophet Muhammad’s beard. Until today this remark by Dr Mahathir refuses to go away and even Umno admits that this was probably one of the gravest mistakes he ever made -- making fun of the Prophet’s appearance.

The Deputy Prime Minister will of course be asked to explain his statement. And if I were PAS I would not allow this statement to pass unchallenged.

What did Muhyiddin mean when he said that if PAS were to come to power they would chop of your hands? Is he saying that all Malaysians are thieves and robbers and there is not an honest soul left in Malaysia?

First of all, is this proper and correct Islamic law? Is Muhyiddin saying that the chopping of hands does not exist in Islamic law? Or is he saying that it does exist but he does not accept it and rejects Islamic law?

This, he needs to explain. He needs to tell us whether he disputes the existence of the law or he accepts the existence of the law but rejects its implementation.

It is one thing to make fun of PAS. It is another to make fun of Islam. Malays are extremely sensitive about their race and religion, sometimes to an extreme. Muhyiddin may be seen as making fun of Islam rather than making fun of PAS. He is walking on very thin ice here.

Muhyiddin may now be challenged to state his stand on Islam. He has passed a remark that appears to be a challenge to Islam. Muhyiddin may have to categorically declare whether he accepts or rejects Islam and the laws that come with it.

Of course, there is always one way out for Muhyiddin, so all is not lost. He can declare that the chopping of hands does not exist in Islam and that is why he spoke out against it and made fun of it. He can state that the Hudud laws never came from God and was merely a creation of man. He can quote verses from the Quran that argue against the Hadith. Muhyiddin can declare that all Hadith are false and were fabricated by enemies of Islam who wanted to corrupt Islam and mislead the people.

If Muhyiddin were to argue this then he could probably counter whatever PAS may say about him. Declare all Hadith as false and opposed to real Islamic teachings. Declare that the Quran never laid down the cutting of hands and those who propagate this are spreading false teachings of Islam. Declare that the Islamic law of Hudud was a law that was fabricated hundreds of years after the Prophet and were not what the Prophet taught Muslims.

Then maybe Muhyiddin will be able to counter any criticism to his remarks.

And I can only conclude by saying good luck.